Teaching at a Distance: Improving Students’ Learning
Advances in the teaching/learning debate

Teaching at a distance is the cumulative act of designing, delivering and
assessing within distance education programmes. In this paper, teaching and
learning are seen as two interdependent functions of the process of knowledge
construction in the learning environment.

Part 1 of the paper discusses ways in which teaching could promote learning as
(a) the abstraction of meaning, and (b) an interpretative process aimed at the
understanding of some personal reality, thus, influencing the modes of
knowledge construction in the learning environment.

Part 2 focuses on the element of course design and the extent to which it can
influence students’ experiences of learning.

Part 1
:

“We must ... transform roles and functions, and redefine our traditional
assumptions and attitudes about student competence, ambitions, achievements and
inducements. We must show students how to find (or rediscover) the
satisfaction, value and outright fun of learning for the rest of their lives.
Our prior procrastination does not mean we cannot face reality. Moving into the
learning paradigm takes much consideration, reflection, planning and struggle,
and while we encourage students to face up to their learning disabilities, we
also must confront our own ‘teaching disabilities’." (

Guy Bensusan, 1997
)

To rejoin the artificially separated, naturally inseparable teaching and
learning aspects of paideia, teachers are called upon to consider their
students’ conceptions of learning
and compare them to their own
conceptions of teaching
, so that effective learning-teaching strategies can be adopted which could
assist both students and teachers in improving their practice.

Student’s conceptions of learning are seemingly born from within
concrete learning experiences,
which reflect institutional (systemic) codes of teaching-learning practice and
shape the student’s
orientation to education
. In studying practice, conceptions of learning become
study patterns
which are utilised by the student when dealing with a specific learning task,
and they are used in informing the student’s
learning strategies
. Consequently, those conceptions are determinative regarding the student’s
adoption of particular
approaches to learning
(

Morgan, 1997
).

According to phenomenography research, approaches to learning appear to be
directly linked to the quality of learning outcomes (

Marton et al in Morgan, ibid.
) Two distinct approaches to learning - deep and surface, have been identified
across a range of learning tasks. Students who engage in a learning task with
the intention of understanding or seeking meaning are said to be adopting a
deep approach, while those who engage in a task with the intention of
memorising information are said to be adopting a surface approach. The effect
of different approaches has been demonstrated by numerous studies relating
outcomes of learning to approach adopted. Not surprisingly, surface approaches
are associated with poor learning outcomes, while deep approaches are
associated with higher quality learning outcomes (
Entwistle and Ramsden, 1983 – Watkins, 1983
).

If we agree with the researchers and practitioners in the field of student
learning that understanding of subjects (rather than memorising of formulae or
textbook paragraphs) is of crucial importance to learning in higher education,
then it is important to think about the kind of learning strategies that can be
adopted to encourage this approach. Surface approaches cannot help students
find coherence and reach full understanding of the content of their readings.
If teaching is to help students improve their learning so that they can engage
in a personally meaningful way, the development of students’ learning
conceptions leading towards a deep approach should be sought. Deep learning is
associated with analytical ‘destructuring’ of new learning material followed by
critical ‘restructuring’ which relates the new material to the learner’s
existing understanding (

Morgan, ibid., pp. 76-7
).

In Roger Saljö’s study from Sweden, reported in

Morgan (ibid.),
students define learning among five concepts. They are:

an accumulation of information,

memorisation of facts,

learning a set of procedures to be used in practice,

abstraction of meaning and

an interpretative process aimed at the understanding of some personal reality

illustrating the application of theory to practice / developing the capacity to
be expert,

exploring ways of understanding from particular perspectives

bringing about conceptual change

(pp. 294-5)

The emerging relations between the two sets of conceptions, which make up the
teaching-learning dynamic in the learning environment, indicate ways in which
students’ approaches to learning may be influenced (

Trigwell et al, 1998 & 1999 - Prosser & Trigwell 1999
).

According to

Ramsden (1992)
students’ conceptions four and five are qualitatively different from the first
three which imply a less complex view of what learning consists of, i.e.
learning is something external to the learner. Conceptions four and five
emphasise the internal or personal aspect of learning: learning is something
that you do in order to understand the real world (Constructivist View of
Mind), rather than something done by someone or something to the learner
(Representational View of Mind).

It becomes evident that these latter two conceptions in each set of categories
refer to constructivist notions of
interactive learning
, requiring
dialectic transactions
as a means of abstracting meaning and constructing knowledge, and
reflection
as a metacognitive activity leading to esoteric change (

Morgan, 1998 & Chambers, 1998
).

In this context, the role of teaching would be to elicit dialectic transactions
in the learning environment and beyond, and help motivate students to engage
in, time consuming but highly productive, reflective practices. Hence,
promoting the development of deep learning approaches at a distance would
require practices which could support dialogue and provide opportunities for
critical reflection.

Evans and Nation see dialogue “as the essential ingredient for ensuring that
students engage actively with learning materials” and maintain that “
dialogue involves the idea that humans in communication are engaged actively in
the making and exchange of meanings
, it is
not
merely about the
transmission of
messages.” (

in Morgan, 1997
).

In preparing text materials for presentation, dialogue can be introduced into
the text through the use of multiple voices, or recorded discussions about key
areas of course material. The course material of the MA in ODE programme is a
good example of such practice which goes “beyond the idea of the teaching text
as an authoritative monologue” and, thus, facilitates abstraction of meaning by
drawing students into a dialogue which helps them “to interrogate the set
books” (

Morgan, ibid.
).

However, as

Marton and Booth (1997)
advocate:

a capability for acting in a certain way reflects a capability to experiencing
something in a certain way. The latter does not cause the former, but are
logically intertwined. You cannot act other than in relation to the world as
you experience it. (p. 111)

To ensure, then, that deconstruction and reconstruction take place when
students interact with material, dialogue should be initiated and maintained in
the delivery phase with the use of “study groups, tutorial groups, self-help
networks etc) (

Nipper, 1989
), which have been discussed elsewhere (
Karaliotas, 2000
), offer opportunities for alternative teaching approaches. Computer mediated
communication (CMC) enables teachers to initiate and maintain collaborative
online environments which can support the building of learning communities and
provide opportunities for teacher-student-student dialogue. The teacher’s role
here is to tutor students at a distance, not by merely providing personal
tutorial support, but by participating in the negotiation process of meaning as
moderator, facilitator, mentor and peer (
Goodfellow, 1999
), providing feedback (
Laurillard, 1993
) and mindweaving conference discussions (
Feenberg, 1989
).

Teaching and Learning Strategies in the Online Environment

Biggs and Telfer (1987)

suggest that the following kinds of teaching foster deep approaches: an
appropriate motivational context, a high degree of learning activity,
interaction with others, both peers and teachers, and a well-structured
knowledge base.

Laurillard (1993)

discusses a number of key aspects of learning that can be used in any
discussion about teaching strategies. These aspects are:

Apprehending Structure
. Students construct meaning as they read, listen, act and reflect on the
subject content. However, as Laurillard points out "Meaning is given through
structure" (p51) and it is therefore essential that students are able to
interpret the structure of any discourse before they can construct the meaning
that is so crucial to understanding. Students adopting the surface approach
mentioned earlier would fail to do this, as they focus on memorising a number
of phrases and points for later reproduction.

Integrating Parts
. Students need to be able to integrate the signs of knowledge such as
language, symbols, diagrams with what is signified by them.

Acting On The World
. Students are encouraged to engage in some form of activity which, when
integrated with other activities mentioned here, assist in understanding of
content.

Using Feedback
. Actions such as those mentioned above are futile for student learning, unless
feedback on individual actions is available.

Reflecting On Goals-Action-Feedback
. Learners interpret and understand reality as they make links between each of
the above aspects by reflecting on the goals of learning, actions taken, and
the results of those actions.

Utilising Hypertext/Hypermedia for Teaching-Learning

A major feature of the online environment is the potential to create links
between text and other media not only within an individual document but also
between documents residing on any computer in the world which has access to the
Web. The challenge for teachers is to use the knowledge of learning together
with an understanding of the features of the WWW, to design learning
experiences which promote a deep approach to learning so that 'what' students
learn is a deep understanding of the subject content, the ability to analyse
and synthesise data and information, and the development of creative thinking
and good communication skills.

A useful approach to the use of hypertext/hypermedia links on the Web towards
facilitating abstraction of meaning and personal change is to encourage
learners to become collaborators in playful CMC negotiation. Opportunities are
provided for learners to participate in educational games (searching the Web,
role playing, situational simulations) and contribute to the construction of
collective deliverables by providing their own data in the form of
commentaries, counter arguments, summaries or alternative links which are then
also available for other learners to read/follow. Learners thus become aware of
the variations in interpretation and construction of meaning among a range of
people and construct an individual meaning as they review evidence, arguments
and a range of structures. Thus by apprehending structure, integrating parts,
acting on the world and using reflection in an appropriate motivational
context, learners develop an individual interpretation of reality. This also
encourages development of the desired qualities of a learner: the ability to
analyse, to gather evidence and to synthesise.

An example of this strategy can be found is the series of collaborative
activities in H802 “Applications of Information Technology in ODE” MA in ODE
course, where learners become collaborative authors in a playfully meaningful
way as they contribute their own individual interpretations, annotations and
meaning construction on discerned aspects of the course material including
issues raised by learners themselves, or on some of the commentaries provided
by the discipline experts (tutors-faculty). Other, more holistically oriented,
examples of this strategy are the

run by the
Knowledge Media Institute of the UKOU [HREF 3]
, is to use a range of Internet services so that an integrated learning
experience is provided. This approach was adopted and brilliantly implemented
by the
JASON project [HREF 4]
. This project was founded by Robert Ballard, the discoverer of the RMS Titanic
in response to thousands of enquiries about his discovery. The project provides
"a curriculum which is specially developed to highlight the science,
technology, engineering and social studies of an annual electronic field trip".
Learners participate in these electronic field trips "mounted in a remote part
of the world and broadcast in real-time, using state-of-the-art technology, to
a network of educational, research and cultural institutions in the United
States. The 1995 expedition took students on a voyage to the volcanoes,
observatories and unique environments of Hawaii where they had an opportunity
to work alongside scientists, engineers and technicians at the expedition site
as they studied the effects of new species on the fragile environment,
conducted experiments on volcanoes in an attempt to understand how the earth
was formed and compared these volcanoes to those on Mars, Venus and Io.
Students used the Internet to communicate with one another and with the experts
as they discussed a variety of expedition issues. They were also able to
operate robot mechanisms to take samples from active flowing lava and observe
via computer the actual infrared imagery from a NSAS observatory facility. In
the process of participating in this expedition, they learned about technology
in its context of use, rather than as a separate subject isolated from actual
use.

The learning strategies adopted here fit very well with Biggs and Telfer's
comments about the importance of appropriate motivational contexts, a high
degree of learning activity, interaction with others, both peers and teachers,
and a well-structured knowledge base.

Laurillard's ideas about apprehending structure, integrating parts, action,
feedback and reflection are well provided for in the Jason project as students
collaborate with their peers as well as world experts in a variety of
discipline areas. Through Internet, they are provided with an opportunity to
act on the world (by operating robot mechanisms to take samples from active
flowing lava), they receive feedback on those actions, and reflection is
encouraged through the use of on-line journals. And, finally, this is a
learning opportunity that would not be possible any other way!

As an underlying remark, it is essential to recognise that the successful
implementation of teaching strategies like the ones referred to above cannot be
a matter of technique, but rests heavily on the philosophy of (distance)
education which informs decisions about techniques and technology. A philosophy
“which recognizes students’ autonomy and strives for dialogue” (Evans &
Nation, 1989a in

Morgan, 1997, p. 84
).

Part 2:

“Student learning is not accidental: it is the direct result of what has been
designed, intentionally or unintentionally, by teachers, schools, curriculum
developers and communities. Behind teaching and learning events are beliefs
about learning which directly influence what students experience.” (

Wiburg, 1995
).

In examining the extent to which students’ learning experiences at a distance
are reasonably expected to be influenced by course design, there are certain
initial observations that need to be made:

Course design as a fundamental element of teaching at a distance can influence
students’ learning experiences not only through its choice of instructional
design models, but also through its proposed use of educational technology in
the distance environment. It should be worth noting here, once more, that those
decisions stem from the cultural values and the underpinning philosophy of
(distance) education held by faculty and institutions.

Designing distance learning programmes involves not only planning the
‘curriculum’ but also designing the ‘space’. Spatial attributes (lecture room,
lab, library, campus) and the ‘ecology’ of the learning environment are taken
for granted in the design of courses ‘within walls’. In contrast, the building
of ‘ecosystems’ which could, physically or virtually, accommodate distance
learning experiences has been a bare necessity in the design of distance
learning programmes.

A continuing challenge for teachers is how to develop successful, independent
and self-reliant learners. Students have a range of backgrounds and attitudes
to learning and knowledge, but are not always aware of the need for good
communication skills, critical thinking skills, and autonomy as learners.

Morgan (1995)

has presented a model of student learning which shows how various parameters
can affect learning outcomes. This model is depicted in Figure 1:

Fig. 1 – Morgan’s learning model which shows the need for affective support to
DL students

In this part of the discussion, using the MA in ODE courses as an example, I
will attempt to explore possible influences to students’ learning experiences
deriving from course design and its particular choices in the areas of:

learning ‘ecosystem’/environment building

knowledge base construction

assessment of learning outcomes

The Case of H80X Course Design

Instructional systems in distance education are learner centred, which
differentiates them from curriculum-centred and instructor-centred forms of
education. Distance instructional systems should be designed to provide an
opportunity for learners to participate in becoming aware of their own
understanding of the knowledge domain they are interested in.

The

MA in ODE courses [HREF 6]
, offered by the Institute of Educational Technology, UK Open University,
constitute an interesting and informative case of course design operating along
these lines. This internationally available DE programme is taught and assessed
through a combination of media which include the 'traditional' distance
learning package and network communication technologies (e.g. e-mail, computer
conferencing, the World Wide Web).

Course Ecosystem: The Online Campus and the Learning Community

Distance learning often implies student isolation. The DE learner’s study
environment is usually confined to their immediate surroundings, namely home
and/or work. In 3
rd
generation DE settings, network technology has made possible the design of
virtual learning environments which enable “human agency” (Giddens, 1984

cited in Morgan, 1997
) and may foster and support the unfoldment of learning communities.

Learner-centred design approaches and appropriate utilisation of technology
affordances are prerequisites for the building of a virtual ecosystem for
learning. On the other hand, the extent to which it can influence students’
learning experiences depends not only on its ability to facilitate
teaching-learning practices but also on how well can affectively support its
community of learners.

The online campus of the MA in ODE community has the eBBS conferencing system
as its host component, surrounded by course resource Web pages. Within this
virtual campus, peers, colleagues, tutors, librarians and the course team are
able to meet in the comfort of asynchronicity and built a sense of community.
Here is where learners can:

“ ... [make] a number of very good friends, [meet] a broad range of very
interesting colleagues, [learn] a lot and [become] very comfortable with many
web technologies. There [are] also many moments of joy, happiness and
enlightenment in learning in the global online classroom which H80X represents
... In short, my considered opinion after all this, is that learning in a
wholly online environment is at least as good as a lot of face-to-face
instruction as regards content, and it is infinitely MORE convenient for
working people. We all know though, that the social side of learning is also
very valuable. Here 'online' gets a bit trickier, the bottom line being that it
is what we and our learner peers make it.” (
Chappel, 2000
).

The core of H80X learners’ experiences seems to emanate from the eBBS peer
discussions. The highly structured conferences where tutorial groups meet
jostle with learner-led and free ranging Plenary discussions.

“I always liked the free discussion there [in Plenary] and I guess I learnt as
much and maybe more about distance communication from colleagues and action in
Plenary than in any of my tutorial groups.

Many a Plenary discussion concerned meta-course thoughts too. This is natural
as it is also the place where people from all the different groups get
together and this fact alone probably generated BIG thoughts, course overview.
Putting our current H80X course under the microscope in Plenary, also had the
natural and obvious advantage of providing a shared base for comparisons with
our diverse personal implementations and instructional practice. We compared
what were doing/or might do in our own jobs with decisions taken by the course
team for our H80X course” (
Chappel, ibid.
).

Knowledge Base Construction – Learners Control Over Content

In "Conversation, Cognition and Learning"

(1975), Pask
offers a cybernetic and dialectic model for the construction of knowledge. It
involves the interaction between two cognitive systems (e.g. a teacher and
student). The two would engage in a dialogue over a given concept, recognising
their differences in perception about the concept. After multiple iterations of
this process, their differences would be reduced until agreement is reached
between them. The residue of the interaction would then be archived into an
"entailment mesh", a collection of shared concepts known as "public knowledge".

The critical method of learning according to conversation theory is "teachback"
in which one person teaches another what they have learned. Pask identified two
different types of learning strategies: serialists who progress through an
entailment structure in a sequential fashion and holists who look for higher
order relations.

The outcomes of the provision for the teachback method embedded in the H80X
design are illustrated in the numerous threads in the H80X eBBS conferences.
From the “Hyde Park Corner” of H801/97 (

Appendix 1
) to the hundreds of Peer Resource Links and Academic Summaries in H802/98
& H804/99, to the over 600 (so far) content rich messages in David
Hawkridge’s tutorial group forum (H801/2000), its major effect on students’
learning experiences in participating in the construction of knowledge base and
having control over content is evident.

Assessment

While students are accepting more control for their own learning, faculty
members still control assessment and what is to be learned. Both faculty and
institutions are challenged to consider outcomes versus components that make up
a learning community

(Lemke and Dressner, 1995
).

Given that assessment is a powerful influence, it is not surprising that
students who are oriented towards deep learning actually do spend time
memorising and are often syllabus bound (and of course Marton showed that the
approach taken is strongly influenced by the anticipated assessment). If it is
possible for students to pass tests and examinations by adopting a purely
surface approach, then we should be changing the content and methods of
assessment.

H80X courses are assessed entirely by coursework. There are no examinations.
The coursework consists chiefly of tutor-marked assignments (TMAs). Assignments
are sent to the tutor who gives feedback in the form of detailed teaching
comments on student’s work as well as a grade. Instead of an examination, each
course has an extended piece of work (e.g. a project report) which is marked
not just by the student’s tutor but also by another independent expert.

However, there is still room for improvement. In the words of the MA Programme
Director

Robin Mason (1999)
:

"Current assessment procedures in higher education are long overdue for a
rethink. They are particularly ill suited to the digital age in which using
information is more important than remembering it, and where reusing material
should be viewed as a skill to be encouraged, not as academic plagiarism to
be despised"

and

"There are certainly educational benefits to be had from a re-thinking of
assessment where online access is possible. We would welcome opportunities in
the faculties to move towards more integrated, more learner-oriented and more
collaborative tmas and even exams!"

Back to basics

Throughout history, instructional methods have mirrored the debate between the
two philosophical paradigms that even today remain unresolved: Is the mind
merely a tool for representing the real world, or does the mind produce its own
reality?

Jonassen (1991)

compares the two philosophical paradigms which parallel the two theories of
thinking -objectivism and constructivism:

"In order to contrast their assumptions, the two theories are generally
described as polar extremes on a continuum from externally mediated reality
(objectivism) to internally mediated reality (constructivism)."

He argues that while it is true that behaviourist theory has given way to the
cognitive sciences, instructional systems technology is still influenced by
behaviourist assumptions. He explains:

"...[that] perhaps cognitive psychology has not provided enough of a paradigm
shift; that behavioral and many cognitive instructional design processes are
based on a restrictive set of philosophical assumptions that do not adequately
conceptualize the mental states of the learner; and that perhaps a new
philosophical paradigm shift is needed in IST."

Perhaps the new paradigm he seeks has already appeared somewhere other than
psychology or philosophy. If we are thinking holistically, we can turn to other
fields for our answer. As the cognitive revolution in learning psychology
experienced its release from the 19th century constraints, we also see a
revolution in the natural sciences that breaks the bonds of 19th century
rigidity. In the fields of mathematics and physics there were three major
scientific revolutions in the twentieth century: relativity, quantum theory and
chaos theory.

In the article "What can we learn from Chaos Theory? An alternative approach to
instructional systems design”,

Yeongmahn You (1993)
shows us how chaos theory can provide the necessary paradigm shift to
accommodate constructivism. His article explains how using the principles of
chaos theory can provide us with a completely new perspective in thinking about
instructional design.

You says that according to Gleick (1987), Chaos is a science of process rather
than a state of existence. It is a process of becoming as opposed to a
condition of being. To understand the learning process as a dynamic system
requires an alternate view of knowledge.

"Knowledge must be understood as a dynamic system, constantly changing and
reshaping. Human learners do not passively follow a pre-programmed package or
react to external stimulus in a dynamic view of knowledge. Rather, they follow
unpredictable patterns which are discontinuous and complex." (pp. 23-4)

Except for certain types of technical or procedural tasks, behaviouristic
principles decontextualise and oversimplify learning. We gravitate this way
because we can not control all the multitudes of variables in the learning
process. We ignore the ones we can't control the same way Descartes wanted to
ignore the spiritual aspects of the mind. A major mental paradigm shift is
needed to even acknowledge, let alone control, all these multitudes of
variables. The constructivist perspective is heading in this direction in that
it does not try to deny the existence of variables we can't control. We are
heading back to relevant, contextual learning in a non-linear dynamic system,
the way our tribal ancestors dealt with learning.

It is in fact a part of the function of education to help us escape—not from
our own time, for we are bound by that--but from the intellectual and emotional
limitations of our own time. – T. S. Eliot